|
|
|
|
Bush Moves Closer To Backing Constitutional Amendment People for the American Way Dissects Discriminatory Ploy Says Bush will 'Sugarcoat' Plan with Pretend 'Compassion' People for the American Way |
|
If President Bush does embrace a first-ever constitutional amendment requiring discrimination against a group of Americans, he will almost certainly attempt to sugarcoat the situation with soothing words about compassion and respect for the people and families that will be irreparably harmed by his actions. The White House is trying to have it both ways - to mollify anti-gay zealots who make up an important part of the president's political base without alienating more moderate voters. But rhetoric about "respect" must not be allowed to obscure the basic fact that using the Constitution to force states to discriminate against same-sex couples is a radical act that would damage our social fabric just as surely as it would hurt committed couples and their children and families. There is no "moderate" way to write discrimination into the Constitution. There is no "respectful" way to amend the Constitution - the foundation of our freedom - to permanently assign one group of Americans to second-class citizenship. There is no "compassionate" way to deny the children of gay parents the stability and legal protections that can only be offered by marriage. The White House and the Musgrave Amendment
The Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay organization, recently announced that it was endorsing the Musgrave language after close consultation with the White House. The Family Research Council's ultimate goal regarding same-sex relationships is clear. It has been asking candidates to sign a pledge that includes this phrase: The uniting of persons of the same or opposite sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar relationship shall not be valid or recognized with any legal benefits or privileges in the United States. While some Religious Right leaders have been agitating for an amendment with even more explicit and sweeping anti-gay language than the FMA (one is currently being championed by Concerned Women for America), the FRC announcement appeared to signal an agreement between the White House and at least some of its allies to back the Musgrave FMA. This apparent decision has spawned efforts to portray President Bush as endorsing a moderate approach to amending the Constitution. But the act of amending the Constitution is not a moderate act; disfiguring the Constitution with a requirement to discriminate is nothing close to moderate. Even a number of conservatives and ultraconservatives say that the FMA is a bad idea. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner has said he believes a constitutional amendment is not necessary. Vice President Dick Cheney has said that states should be able to set their own marriage policies - so has conservative columnist George Will. Other conservative commentators like David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan have been making the case that conservatives should embrace same-sex marriage because promoting the values of commitment and stability is good for society and is good for marriage itself. Having more people willing to take on the obligation to support and care for each other only strengthens marriage. White House Politics- First Strategy: Be a Divider, Not a Uniter For months, leaders of right-wing organizations have been clamoring for President Bush to move more aggressively to promote a constitutional amendment that would prevent states like Massachusetts from ending discrimination against same-sex couples seeking to get married. Religious Right groups have vowed to make opposition to marriage equality the top social issue in the 2004 elections and have suggested that if Bush's political strategists want an energized right-wing voter base, the White House must campaign hard for a constitutional amendment. They also hope it will prove divisive among moderate and progressive Americans. In October, a Newhouse News story reported that Republican pollster Richard Wirthlin had written a memo calling a federal marriage amendment "an ideal wedge issue" that "if handled properly can work very much to the advantage of Republican candidates, if it gains some visibility prior to the 2004 election." Wirthlin said the amendment could be used to move some African American voters away from support for Democratic candidates. Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal Constitution, recently wrote a Baltimore Sun column on the Massachusetts high court's Goodridge decision: That ruling allowed Mr. Rove, President Bush's political handler, to change the subject. He didn't want to go into the presidential campaign talking about the issues that matter most in the life of the republic: the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the gargantuan (and growing) budget deficit, millions of lost jobs. Mr. Rove didn't want Mr. Bush to have to defend his decisions on the environment, his pandering to big business, his knee-jerk allegiance to the wealthy. On those issues, he is vulnerable. So Mr. Rove badly needed a distraction - a surefire appeal to voters' baser instincts. And he found it with the Massachusetts ruling....Gay marriage doesn't affect the household income of the average voter or his children's chances for getting into good colleges. It doesn't outsource jobs to India. And it doesn't contribute to the decline of heterosexual marriage. (We haven't needed any help with that.) But it does stir the blood and cloud the judgment of many Americans, persuading them to vote for the candidate who pledges to protect them from it. White House Rhetoric About Activist Judges Ignores History, Role of Courts President Bush and other opponents of equal marriage rights have vilified the justices on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court who have ruled in the Goodridge case that their state constitution does not allow the state to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking to get married. According to opponents of the recent Massachusetts ruling, the judges have no right to extend marriage equality to same sex couples. In fact, the role of judges is precisely to interpret our laws and constitutions. Our history has many examples of judges and courts moving the nation toward justice, often before legislatures were ready to do the right thing. Courts ruled against segregated schools and other public facilities at a time when segregation had widespread support. In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned state laws that prohibited couples from getting married if they were not of the same race. Looking back now, we can hardly believe those laws were still being enforced as recently as the 1960s. Fundamental principles are embedded in our state and federal constitutions precisely to prevent basic rights from being denied based on a majority vote. The federal and state constitutions set out principles, including equality under the law, and the courts apply those principles to our laws. That is what the Massachusetts court has done. It is true that the Massachusetts ruling has sparked controversy and intense public debate, as did previous rulings on interracial marriage and segregation. That debate reflects both changing attitudes toward support for full legal equality and some continuing resistance to equal marriage rights. This spirited discussion is another reason not to rush to give discrimination constitutional permanence. The public understands this. Polls have shown that most people in Massachusetts are opposed to amending their state constitution by writing discrimination into it, and that most Americans oppose a discriminatory amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For all the rhetoric about protecting the will of the people, a federal marriage amendment would impose a discriminatory standard on Massachusetts and other states that have extended a measure of equality and legal protection to same-sex couples and their families through legal or legislative action. Constitutional Amendment Unnecessary to Protect Religious Liberty The Goodridge decision is not an attack on religion or religious belief. No church or other house of worship can be forced to marry or give its blessing to any couple. The First Amendment guarantees that religious communities will always be able to make their own decisions about who to marry. It should also be noted that some religious denominations do offer their blessings to committed same-sex relationships, and many religious leaders support the move toward equality. There is an important difference between the legal institution of marriage, which provides couples and families with specific legal protections, and the religious celebration of marriage. Some Americans choose to get married by a judge or other court official. They have the same rights and responsibilities under the law as couples who are married in a religious ceremony. Some churches do not condone divorce or remarriage. But the law does not allow those religious objections to prevent people from getting divorced and remarried, and couples on their second or third marriage have the same legal protections and obligations as people married for the first time. But no church is forced to give its religious blessing. The separation of church and state protects both individuals and churches. Most Americans respect that distinction, and so does the Massachusetts decision. If our rights and laws were based on one group's religious teachings, birth control, divorce and remarriage could be illegal. Books and movies considered heretical or blasphemous might be banned. Fortunately, our laws are based on the Constitution, which guarantees basic rights and equal treatment for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs or the beliefs of others. In a religiously diverse country like ours, it is especially important to ground public policy in constitutional principles, not on any group's religious doctrine. Individual Americans can support the principle of equality under the law without giving up personal religious beliefs about same-sex relationships. The Musgrave Amendment Does Not "Protect" Families and Children - It Hurts Them The lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples leaves them more vulnerable to personal and financial disasters, such as the inability to be with a partner and make decisions during a medical emergency, the ability to keep a house that has been shared for many years when one partner dies, and access to health insurance. It also leaves any children they might have extremely vulnerable. It is a simple fact that there are many children growing up with gay parents. It is strongly in their best interest - and in society's interest - to give those children the protection and stability that can only be afforded by the legal recognition of their family that marriage affords. When families are not allowed to establish legal relationships between a child and both parents, the results can be devastating when, for example, one parent dies. Families can be broken up and children separated from parents because of the lack of legal recognition. Even people who are personally opposed to gay relationships should understand that punishing children in such families makes no sense. In addition, it is important to note that the law has never made having children a requirement for people to enjoy the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. Many heterosexual couples are unable to - or choose not to - have children, and that does not affect the legal status of their marriage. The legal protections provided by marriage are important to couples whether or not they have children. The notion that heterosexual marriages must be "protected" from committed gay couples seeking to get married is absurd. There are many pressures that couples and families face. When people think about threats to marriage, they usually are thinking about infidelity, problems with alcohol or drug abuse, economic pressures, and the difficulties of finding family time with two hard-working parents. Allowing committed same-sex couples to enter into the mutual obligations and responsibilities of marriage doesn't do anything to harm couples that are already married or those who want to marry in the future. This argument just doesn't make sense. In addition, marriage has not always been the institution we know today. It has changed dramatically over the centuries. In many cases, women were treated as property being transferred from father to husband. In this country, married women used to have few legal rights. And until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that such laws were unconstitutional, many states made it a criminal offense for interracial couples to marry. Social and religious views on same-sex relationships and on marriage itself are diverse and evolving. It would be wrong to use the Constitution to slam the door shut on individuals working to move public opinion and public institutions in the direction of full equality. Equality Before the Law People For the American Way and the affiliated People For the American Way Foundation support full equality for all Americans, including equal marriage rights for same-sex couples under civil law. PFAWF filed an amicus curiae brief in the Lawrence v. Texas case, which overturned laws that criminalized private adult consensual sexual activity, as well as in Goodridge, the Massachusetts marriage case. The legal protections that have been afforded to couples in some states and localities through civil union or domestic partner laws are incredibly important to them and their families. But those provisions still do not provide all of the legal protections provided by marriage. And they still leave gay and lesbian people being treated differently, as second-class citizens. They leave families vulnerable. And that's not right. Even many Americans who are uncertain about extending full equal marriage rights to same-sex couples support steps to reduce the inequities and dangers gay families face due to their inability to gain legal recognition. And many of them oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would restrict civil rights protections rather than expand them. Our country will be stronger when all children and parents in all families have access to the legal protections that civil marriage provides. Our country is diminished by groups advocating that discrimination be enshrined in our Constitution and laws, and by the Bush administration's willingness to seek short-term political gain by encouraging efforts that foment bigotry and division. |
|
Will George W. Bush shortly announce support for a constitutional ban on gay marriages? Reports say yes. 
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) proposed the constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions